I would like to first say that I am not opposed to upgrades in school facilities. There comes a time when buildings need to be replaced, and I’m fully onboard when that time comes. But it is important to differentiate between a “want” and a “need,” particularly when over $70 million is involved. Issues Such as ceiling tiles collapsing/missing, moldy carpet, and toilets that are not working are things that students absolutely should not have to deal with. However, these are maintenance issues that the school should have addressed promptly, but they are not justification for a new building.
It is difficult to know whether this levy request really is a necessity because of a lack of information.
Opinions and speculations expressed by Board/Committee members in newspaper articles and social media are not “facts”. Efforts in the past few years have focused on the consolidation of elementary buildings with little information provided regarding a new high school. After multiple failed attempts for a new elementary school, the Board is now requesting a new high school, and the apparent reason is that this is more likely to pass, as it is less controversial. That’s not really a compelling justification for this levy. As soon as the Board decided to request this levy, detailed information should have been sent to every household with facts supporting the Board’s case for this request, and there should have been more attempts to educate taxpayers leading up to this election. Instead, it has been stated that this campaign has been intentionally “quiet”. If facts indicate a necessity, why not provide as much “factual” data to as many people as possible? Another concern of this levy is the toll on a fair percentage of our community as a previous writer indicated.
It has been noted that our kid’s future is at stake with this building levy, but what about the future of those who have limited financial resources? Granted, the levy is scaled according to income. However, essentials like food, electricity, and gas are not prorated based on income, and lower income families are negatively impacted the most by the current economy.
The median household income in BG is around $ 40,000 and adding another tax to these families can be devastating.
Additionally, the Board’s requests will not stop with this levy. In reading various articles one can see that there will most likely be a request for an operating levy, in addition to another request for an elementary school, all within a few short years.
Lastly, the committee toured Northwood High School and got ideas of what a new facility could look like. Did the committee consider touring a facility such as Ottawa Hills High School which has an older building than Bowling Green and academically is always ranked among the top schools in the state? Perhaps there could have been some ideas on how to maintain an older building without compromising academic results.
The levy should be rejected at this time, and the School Board/Administration needs to do its due diligence by allowing voters to be “informed constituents”. This means more than a few newspaper articles and a handful of meetings. Provide every household with detailed documents that identify the current building’s strengths and deficiencies, along with a cost analysis of providing repairs and upgrades vs new buildings.
Additionally, provide taxpayers with a blueprint of what the long-term calendar of levy requests will look like over the next 30 years. Surely this type of planning has been considered. All this information exists, and is known among the Board and Committee members, but the fact is that a good portion of potential voters have not been provided with these resources in order to cast an informed vote for this levy.
Jim Cress
Bowling Green
